The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Lunan]

oh i love that. its like the clit from jay and silent bob

[Der Mike]

In news that will shock, literally, nobody --- the UN cannot account for somewhere in the neighborhood of FOUR BILLION DOLLARS given to North Korea starting in 1999. Nobody is allowed to see the audits of the money and the $4B is just "missing".

So, Oil-For-Food wasn't a scandal. It was the norm for the UN.

Dismantle the entire organization. It is useless.
-=Mike

[moreorless]

I'd say that to pull out of Iraq early defeats pretty much the entire arguement for being there in the first place, both morally and politically. Morally that Saddams rule was harsh but maybe more importantly that if he'd died/lost power and nobody was there to step in the choas were seeing now would probabley have been 10 times worse. Politically I'd say Bush's main movitation in the first place was fear of the likes of Iran extending their influence if Saddam lost power.

[David Panzer]

The entire "fear" aspect about the war has worn thin with me.

[phazedout]

Just on bush's "state of the union" address.
Number of times Iraq was mentioned? 24
No of times Global warming was mentioned? 1
Phaze
on the "Can see where Dubya's priorities are" ID

[Dr Maturin]

Just on bush's "state of the union" address.
Number of times Iraq was mentioned? 24
No of times Global warming was mentioned? 1
Phaze
on the "Can see where Dubya's priorities are" ID

Right where they should be according to the US Constitution? The president is responsible for the execution of war. Were I POTUS, there'd have been no mention of global warming.

I love when people suggest that any and all military actions should be taken to the UN, but stuff like "global warming" is put squarely on the shoulders of the President of the United States.

[David Panzer]

Right where they should be according to the US Constitution? The president is responsible for the execution of war.

And he's done a knock-out job so far

[Radhil]

I left the room to go play video games after his opening bits of balanced budgets and halving the deficit in five years. Perfectly straight face. Mine wasn't. I can't stomach that much bullshit from anybody.

[Dr Maturin]

And he's done a knock-out job so far

The issue was the number of mentions Iraq got as opposed to global warming. Iraq is very relevant to the SOTU, thus it garnered more attention.

The failings of the Iraq War is another discussion entirely.

I left the room to go play video games after his opening bits of balanced budgets and halving the deficit in five years. Perfectly straight face. Mine wasn't. I can't stomach that much bullshit from anybody.

Increased revenues from the booming economy is lowering national debt and decreasing the deficit. "Tax the living shit out of Americans" isn't the only option, you know.

[Der Mike]

Just on bush's "state of the union" address.
Number of times Iraq was mentioned? 24
No of times Global warming was mentioned? 1
Phaze
on the "Can see where Dubya's priorities are" ID

You mean he doesn't opt to base government policy on junk science?

That jerk!
-=Mike

[Radhil]

Increased revenues from the booming economy is lowering national debt and decreasing the deficit. "Tax the living shit out of Americans" isn't the only option, you know.

Um *shrug* OK? So, you're buying into that? I have a bridge....

I don't care what the economy is or the proposal. It's an act of God to balance a budget against any pork sludge on the Hill. Halve the deficit, built by 75 years or so of pretending deficit spending is a good thing? What, does Dubya have a piggy bank under his pillow? Maybe if we sell the West Coast I could see that. Damn Californians.

[David Panzer]

The government will never balance the budget. Doing so would create a whole in the space/time continuum, which would mean the end of life as we know it.

On second thought, that doesn't sound so bad.

[Der Mike]

Um *shrug* OK? So, you're buying into that? I have a bridge....

I don't care what the economy is or the proposal. It's an act of God to balance a budget against any pork sludge on the Hill. Halve the deficit, built by 75 years or so of pretending deficit spending is a good thing? What, does Dubya have a piggy bank under his pillow? Maybe if we sell the West Coast I could see that. Damn Californians.

Which is why the Dems TOTAL flip-flop on the idea of giving Bush a pseudo-line item veto (where he simply sends specific pet projects back to Congress for a straight up-or-down vote) all the more inexcusable. Why not give a President that power?

The GOP tried to give it to Clinton.
-=Mike

[David Panzer]

And the last president who had the line-item veto was Jefferson Davis of the Confederate States of America

[Karachi Vyce]

And the last president who had the line-item veto was Jefferson Davis of the Confederate States of America

What's your point? A line-item veto is a smart idea.

It's not as if Clinton didnt want it. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in the form that it initially took as passed.